Chase de Vere Independent Financial Advisers has been ordered to pay back a client after it recommended she purchase a second income protection insurance policy she couldn’t benefit from.
reported the client, referred to as Ms C, was mis-sold two income insurance policies in 2006 when she met with one of the company’s advisers. At the time she already held two income protection policies with an insurer referred to in the decision as ‘A’. She was then advised to take out two more policies with insurer ‘B’.
In 2014 Ms C had another appointment with her adviser, who was now working for a different business, and was recommended to cancel her two policies with B as she could not benefit from them. Ms C complained to Chase de Vere that she was mis-sold policies, although the ombudsman’s adjudicator initially did not recommend her complaint be upheld.
However, more evidence surfaced revealing Chase de Vere had based her level of over-insurance on incorrect data. The new information showed her second policy with insurer A had been understated by the firm.
Ombudsman David Poley described Ms C’s evidence as ‘convincing’, and Chase de Vere has been ordered to pay Ms C the difference between the amount she paid for that policy and the amount she would have paid for a policy worth £6,520 a year, with interest of eight per cent, per year, added on.
Should policy change have set alarm bells ringing for burgled medics?
Sale of Abbey Life Assurance hit by regulator investigation